Skip to content

Conversation

pnkfelix
Copy link
Contributor

@pnkfelix pnkfelix commented Nov 22, 2021

This version does not attempt to resolve the problem that is illustrated by src/test/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/drop_impl.rs (a problem that relies on nightly features to demonstrate anyway).

My thinking is that this is a better choice for backporting to stable and beta.

Fix #90838 (which was closed by accident by #90840, which only landed on nightly, so far).

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

  • Pull requests are usually filed against the master branch for this repo, but this one is against beta. Please double check that you specified the right target!

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Nov 22, 2021
@pnkfelix pnkfelix force-pushed the limit-scope-of-87770-backport branch from e96fa7b to f9ee681 Compare November 22, 2021 18:06
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Contributor Author

(The compiler team itself hasn't discussed whether we would be better off backporting this, or backporting PR #90840 itself. I believe we will resolve that question on Wednesday.)

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I'm probably not a good reviewer here -- r? @jackh726 perhaps?

@jackh726
Copy link
Member

This implementation looks good to me, but I don't know if its strictly better than #90840 for backport.

Does the new test you added also pass on master? We probably want that test added regardless.

On one hand, this is somewhat of a revert to #87770, which is "safer". On the other, it's pretty clear that the cause of the issue was just a failure to relate the lifetimes.

I'll leave the decision to backport this or #90840 to the compiler team, but I personally prefer the latter out of consistency. However, r=me on this implementation.

@apiraino apiraino added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Nov 24, 2021
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Contributor Author

This implementation looks good to me, but I don't know if its strictly better than #90840 for backport.

Does the new test you added also pass on master? We probably want that test added regardless.

The test is taken from #90840. So it already is on master.

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Contributor Author

(Closing; We'll backport #90840 instead of this.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants